search_workspace

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context about skipped directories (.git, node_modules, dist, release) and sensitive files, which is not in annotations. It doesn't describe return format, but the safety profile is covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause adds information (grep-like, repo_path, skip list). No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has a nontrivial parameter set and no output schema, but the description covers purpose, scope, and exclusions. It could be more complete by describing the return value and clarifying 'sensitive files', but given the annotations and schema, it's adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% – all six parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond reinforcing the search context, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Search file contents (grep-like)' with a specific verb and resource, and scopes it to 'a Direct session's repo_path'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_workspace and read_workspace_file by focusing on content search.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context by specifying repo_path and the grep-like nature, which differentiates from listing/reading files. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.